PX #2: The Familiarity Spectrum

This is an installment in a multi-part essay covering board game “Player Experience” or “PX”¬†I highly recommend you start at the beginning, but it’s certainly not required ūüôā

The experience a Player has with your game is going to vary based on a lot of factors.¬†Imagine someone brand new to your game. Thay have no familiarity with any aspect of it, though¬†perhaps they have seen the box. Maybe they have read the rules, but there’s no¬†way to know. At the other extreme, lies you, the designer. You’re not only familiar with all the aspects, but also the history of each component, and the full evolution¬†of each mechanic and each system. Anyone who sits down to experience your game is going to¬†fall somewhere¬†along this spectrum of familiarity.

As a player brand new to your game sit down to play, all they have to go on are the Affordances and Constraints you’ve given them, and the Conceptual Models they are able to build based on the art and components¬†you’ve provided them, as well as those you’ve attempted to impart via the rulebook.

How able they are to build those mental models is also¬†highly dependent on how familiar they are with games in general. To a brand new, never-seen-a-hobby-game player, a sequence of squares or wells for tracking a value, like the elastic resource markets in Wealth of Nations using a cube may not offer any clearer a conceptual model than a complex tech tree from a game like Twilight Imperium. To the experienced gamer, it may be sufficient to point out which components represent the concepts they know from other games. The generally-experienced player doesn’t to be walked through a scoring track, a representation of a network, the concept of “hit points” a “discard pile” or “spending resources”. Those are doors it’s sufficient to show them to, and they can walk through. Not so for a player who sits down to¬†your game without any other hobby games under their belt.

Ideally, as players play your game multiple times, they will become familiar with it, and be able to sit down and play it without much struggle. They will develop an understanding of the conceptual models to mentally represent the things your game conveys. This is, of course, contingent upon having a good experience the first time.

Therefore,¬†as players repeat your game, they will¬†be trending toward becoming¬†“familiar” with your game and likely games in general.¬†Even though “familiar with your game” and “familiar with games in general” aren’t entirely independent, I think there are some interesting insights to be gleaned when we plot them against each other.

familiarity-blank

The Familiarity Spectra

Now, consider where people may be when introduced to your game: they could¬†be distributed anywhere along the bottom¬†of this chart ‚ÄĒ maybe they’ve played everything on the Board Game Geek¬†‘hotness’ for the last 15 years, and have seen everything¬†under the sun, or maybe they’re my mom ‚ÄĒ never tabled a board game in her life[1] but talked into trying it¬†by a friend.

familiarity dots 1

First time players with a range of general Familiarity may gain Familiarity with your game at different rates, and gain different amounts of transferrable Familiarity to games in general.

If your players have a great experience, they will repeatedly interact with your game, and will necessarily trend/drift to the right. Between this, and perhaps through playing of other games in the interim, (between sessions), they will also drift rightward on this plot.

How quickly they move to the right during their first session can have a dramatic impact on their¬†experience. A fast-payoff¬†learning curve (I’m working hard to keep my pedantry in check here‚Ķ what I really mean is “steep”, though I know the colloquial use of “steep” is actually the opposite¬†:)) can help with that, as a new player will progress quickly into familiarity with your game if¬†you guide them in the learning process.

Anecdote:¬†I recently sat down with a group for our first game of Study in Emerald. Through the use of affordances and our previous conceptual models of board deck locations, scoring tracks and deck building, most of us knew what many of the components were intended to do. The rules specific to this game came off as bewildering to all of us at the¬†beginning, but all five of us progressed rapidly¬†along¬†the “this game” axis, and by the end, we all walked away willing to¬†try again; my¬†next tabling will see me¬†starting off much further to the right, and my¬†experience will be different. My¬†mental models of the systems are¬†improved,¬†and I’ll¬†bypass a lot of¬†early frustration. Same game, same rules, same affordances and constraints in front of me, and my experience will be different. Because my Familiarity changed.

familiarity dots 2

Players may get different Familiarity boosts at different rates the second time around. It’s not far flung to imagine over dozens or hundreds of players to imagine “channels” of Familiarity development forming.

A great interface can teach a User how to use it, and a great game can teach a Player how to increase¬†their¬†familiarity¬†with it. Facilitating this quickly is going¬†to leave players with one kind of experience (perhaps a satisfaction payoff, we’ll be covering things like dopamine hits in a few weeks),¬†conversely, a gradual growth into familiarity could¬†lead to a more rewarding experience when they finally ‘get’ it.¬†Philosophically, you can also consider how your game cues up your players to experience the greater world of hobby gaming, if you’re into that kind of thing. If I haven’t explicitly called it out yet in this series, I’m not looking to make prescriptivist declarations of how games¬†should be made‚Ķ only attempting to define a framework of considerations to empower designers to think about the experience holistically.

These Familiarity Spectra make up, in my opinion, the second pillar of the board gaming Player Experience (PX). Next up, because any tabling could include any combination of players in any¬†quadrant¬†of these¬†axes: We’ll¬†explored how the each¬†player at the table impacts the Player Experience¬†of the other players, and how what a¬†person brings to the session, as well as the dynamics between players¬†can¬†be a powerful consideration.

This series continues with “PX is Other People“!

To make sure you don't miss any posts in the series, you can subscribe here:

[1] Exaggeration for effect ‚ÄĒ my mom was always¬†a¬†trooper when it came to sitting down for¬†endless sessions of Hero Quest or The Omega Virus when I was a child. Thanks Mom! Love you.

  • Conor McGoey

    Another great article. Thanks!
    It’s funny I would consider myself an avid gamer, but I had a similar experience with “A Study in Emerald”, when I played it for the first time a few weeks ago.
    I can’t imagine learning that game without having a fair number of complex games under your belt. Then again it was explained to me, I didn’t read the rules myself.
    Which can be important in its own: explaining your game in a way that it can be easily explain to others…

    • woodardj

      Thanks Conor! I’m really glad to hear that that comparison resonated with you. And I love the teaching aspect you just brought in ‚ÄĒ how familiar was the teacher with the game they’re teaching? Was it once through the rulebook, or do they play all the time? I have non-gamer friends who cringe at the name “Catan” because they all tried it together cold turkey and the game took them hours. So many factors in Experience!